גמ׳ ת"ר כל שבעת הימים אדם עושה סוכתו קבע וביתו עראי כיצד היו לו כלים נאים מעלן לסוכה מצעות נאות מעלן לסוכה אוכל ושותה ומטייל בסוכה מה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא כג, מב) תשבו כעין תדורו מכאן אמרו כל שבעת הימים עושה אדם סוכתו קבע וביתו עראי כיצד היו לו כלים נאים מעלן לסוכה מצעות נאות מעלן לסוכה אוכל ושות' ומטייל בסוכה ומשנן בסוכה
The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. The mitzvot of Yom Kippur include prohibitions, as well as the punishment of karet. Why, then, was this additional derivation necessary? Abaye said: Actually, sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: “Shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42) indicates that you reside in the sukka as you dwell; just as dwelling is typically performed by a man and his wife, so too, the mitzva of sukka is performed by both a man and his wife. Therefore, it teaches us that women are exempt. Rava said a different reason: A halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai was necessary to teach that a woman is exempt from the mitzva of sukka, as it might enter your mind to say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to Sukkot, about which it is written: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot” (Leviticus 23:34), from Passover, about which it is written: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of matzot” (Leviticus 23:6). Just as there, women are obligated to eat matza on Passover even though it is a time-bound mitzva, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, women are obligated. Therefore, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai teaches us that they are exempt. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that women’s exemption from the mitzva of sukka is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why do I need the definite article stated in the verse in the term “the homeborn”? The Gemara answers: This verse comes to include converts, as it might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One says: “The homeborn in Israel,” indicating that only homeborn Jews are included and not the converts. Therefore, the verse teaches us that converts are also obligated. The Gemara asks: The obligation of women to fast on Yom Kippur is derived from the statement that Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said. In that case, why do I need the definite article in the term: The homeborn? The Gemara answers: That phrase was needed only to include women in the extension of the period of affliction on Yom Kippur eve, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One excludes one who violates the obligation to afflict himself during the extension of the period of affliction from the punishment of karet and from the Torah prohibition, women should not be obligated to observe that period at all. Their obligation to observe Yom Kippur is based on the principle: The verse equated a woman to a man with regard to all punishments and prohibitions in the Torah. Since there is neither punishment nor Torah prohibition during that period, women should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since they are obligated to observe Yom Kippur, they are obligated to observe the extension of Yom Kippur as well. The Master said in the baraita: “All the homeborn” comes to include the minors capable of performing this mitzva. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Women and slaves and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita where it is taught that minors are included, it is referring to a minor who reached the age of training, whose parents are commanded to train him in the performance of mitzvot and to accustom him to fulfill them. Here, in the mishna where it stated that the minor is exempt, it is referring to a minor who did not yet reach the age of training. The Gemara asks: The obligation of a minor who reached the age of training to perform mitzvot is by rabbinic law, and therefore it is not derived from a verse. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the obligation of the minor is by rabbinic law as part of his training, and the verse is a mere support alluding to that obligation. The mishna continues: A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a minor who does not need his mother? In the school of Rabbi Yannai they said: This is referring to any child who defecates and his mother does not need to wipe him. Rabbi Shimon says: It is any child who awakens from his sleep and does not call: Mother, mother. The Gemara asks: Older children also call for their mother when they arise; what, then, is the criterion? The Gemara answers: Rather, say that any child who awakens and does not call: Mother, mother, repeatedly until his mother comes is characterized as one who does not need his mother. An older child will cry once. However, if his mother does not come, he will tend to himself. The mishna relates: There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and he removed part of the roof so the baby would be in a sukka. The Gemara asks: Does the mishna cite an incident to contradict the preceding halakha that minors that are not independent are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: And Shammai is stringent even with very small children; and there was also an incident and the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof and left the beams and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor. MISHNA: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, from when is it permitted to vacate the sukka? It is permitted from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug [kiton] of water in his face to show him that his presence is not desired. So too, in the sukka, rain is an indication that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not want the person to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. GEMARA: The Sages taught: All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka, which was typically built on the roof. If he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka. He eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that it is as the Sages taught: “In sukkot shall you reside” (Leviticus 23:42), and they interpreted: Reside as you dwell in your permanent home. From here they said: All seven days, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he has beautiful vessels, he takes them up to the sukka; if he has beautiful bedding, he takes it up to the sukka; he eats and drinks and relaxes in the sukka and studies Torah in the sukka. With regard to studying Torah in the sukka, the Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rava say: Studying Bible and studying Mishna are undertaken in the sukka; however, analyzing the Mishna must be undertaken outside the sukka. This indicates that one should not analyze Torah in the sukka. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one studies in the sukka, is with regard to extensive study, i.e., broad study and memorization. That statement of Rava that one should study outside the sukka is with regard to intensive study; such study requires an environment where one can concentrate properly in order to engage in analysis of the Mishna.
ב כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל ענני כבוד היו דברי ר' אליעזר ר"ע אומר סוכות ממש עשו להם
we require that it must be a single corner at the time of threading the strand through the hole. And there is not a single corner in this case, as although he ties the fringes separately, he threads the two corners simultaneously. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that with regard to threading it is not a concern. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and did not first cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. What, is it not saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forever with no way to remedy the situation, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: What is the meaning of unfit? It means they are unfit until they will be cut; not that they are unfit forever. And Shmuel said that it means they are unfit forever. And Levi also said: They are unfit forever. And likewise, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: They are unfit forever. Some say that Rav Mattana said: There was an incident that happened to me involving this uncertainty with regard to ritual fringes, and I came before Master Shmuel and he said to me: They are unfit forever. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a different baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita with regard to a sukka: The verse states: “Prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and from the language of this verse the Sages derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From here the Sages said: If one trellised a grapevine, a gourd plant, or ivy over a sukka while still attached to the ground, and then he added roofing atop the vines, the sukka is unfit. What are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not subsequently cut the vines, why does the tanna particularly teach that it is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Let him derive that the climbing plants are unfit for roofing due to the fact that they are attached to the ground, unrelated to the manner in which they were placed. Rather, it must be referring to a case where he cut them and nevertheless, the baraita is teaching that the vines are unfit, and learn from it that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation; and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav. Rav could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he pulled the branches until they broke off the tree. Since, in that case, their active preparation is not conspicuous, it does not render the climbing plants fit roofing. The Gemara asks: In any case, does that which was taught with regard to ritual fringes: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut their strands, etc., pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it remains difficult according to Rav. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. If black berries grew on a myrtle branch, one of the four species taken on Sukkot, and its berries were more numerous than its leaves, the myrtle branch is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of taking the four species on Sukkot. However, if one picked enough berries so that the leaves were more numerous, it is fit, although one may not pick the berries on the Festival itself. If he transgressed and picked them on the Festival, it is unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak. And the Rabbis deem it fit in that case. The Gemara proceeds to explain the basis for the comparison between the dispute with regard to the roofing of the sukka and the dispute with regard to the myrtle branch. The Sages initially thought that everyone, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Rabbis, agrees that in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species, the three species, i.e., the lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow branch, require a binding by Torah law. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss preparation with regard to this binding. And the Sages also initially thought that everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, as it is written with regard to sukka: Prepare, from which is derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, and the same applies to the halakhot of lulav as well. What, is it not that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the following? That the one who deems the myrtle branch whose berries were picked on the Festival fit, holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to berries on the myrtle branch as one of the species bound with the lulav as well, we say: Their picking is their preparation, and no further action is required. And the one who deems it unfit holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to lulav as well, we do not say: Their picking is their preparation. Therefore, since the myrtle branch was not prepared for use prior to the Festival, and it was bound together with the other species, it is considered already prepared and picking the fruit off the branch is not active preparation sufficient to render it fit. The Gemara rejects that explanation of the dispute. No, the fact is that everyone agrees that we do not say with regard to sukka: Their cutting is their preparation, and here in the case of the myrtle branch, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka that they disagree. The one who deems the myrtle branch fit holds that we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, and therefore the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, does not apply to lulav. And the one who deems the myrtle branch unfit holds that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires a binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka and the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, applies to the halakhot of the four species as well. And here it is with regard to the following that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak, holds that the lulav requires a binding, and therefore the myrtle branch is unfit; and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the lulav does not require a binding, and therefore, preparation is not relevant with regard to lulav and it makes no difference whether the berries were picked before or after the myrtle branch was bound together with the lulav and the willow branch. And they disagree with regard to the same topic as in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav. And if he did not bind it, it is fit. If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why is there a mitzva to bind it at all? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind it is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [ve’anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna’e] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound. § We learned in the mishna: This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: One may not roof the sukka with anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity or whose growth is not from the ground. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters with regard to the roofing of a sukka derived? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: “And there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the entire face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6); just as mist, i.e., a cloud, is a substance not capable of contracting ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, i.e., arises from the ground, so too, the roofing of the sukka must consist of a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground. Since the mitzva of sukka evokes the clouds of glory with which God enveloped the Israelites in the desert, the legal status of roofing should be like that of a cloud. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that the sukkot mentioned in the verse: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:43), were clouds of glory, as it is reasonable that the roofing of the sukka is modeled after clouds. However, according to the one who said that the children of Israel established for themselves actual sukkot in the desert, and the sukkot of today commemorate those, what can be said? According to that opinion, there is no connection between a sukka and a cloud. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot”; these booths were clouds of glory, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They established for themselves actual sukkot. This works out well according to Rabbi Eliezer; however, according to Rabbi Akiva what can be said? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). The expression “festival of Sukkot” likens sukka to the Festival peace-offering [ḥagiga]. Just as the Festival peace-offering is an item not susceptible to ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, as animals draw nourishment from vegetation, so too, the roofing of the sukka must be a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground.
(ז) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִצְחָ֜ק אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֤ם אָבִיו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֔י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֶּ֣נִּֽי בְנִ֑י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה׃ (ח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֱלֹהִ֞ים יִרְאֶה־לּ֥וֹ הַשֶּׂ֛ה לְעֹלָ֖ה בְּנִ֑י וַיֵּלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו׃ (ט) וַיָּבֹ֗אוּ אֶֽל־הַמָּקוֹם֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמַר־ל֣וֹ הָאֱלֹהִים֒ וַיִּ֨בֶן שָׁ֤ם אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וַֽיַּעֲרֹ֖ךְ אֶת־הָעֵצִ֑ים וַֽיַּעֲקֹד֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיָּ֤שֶׂם אֹתוֹ֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ מִמַּ֖עַל לָעֵצִֽים׃ (י) וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־הַֽמַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת לִשְׁחֹ֖ט אֶת־בְּנֽוֹ׃ (יא) וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֜יו מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהוָה֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֣ם ׀ אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃ (יב) וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וְאַל־תַּ֥עַשׂ ל֖וֹ מְא֑וּמָּה כִּ֣י ׀ עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי׃
(7) Then Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he answered, “Yes, my son.” And he said, “Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” (8) And Abraham said, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them walked on together. (9) They arrived at the place of which God had told him. Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood; he bound his son Isaac; he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. (10) And Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son. (11) Then an angel of the LORD called to him from heaven: “Abraham! Abraham!” And he answered, “Here I am.” (12) And he said, “Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.”
(סז) וַיְבִאֶ֣הָ יִצְחָ֗ק הָאֹ֙הֱלָה֙ שָׂרָ֣ה אִמּ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־רִבְקָ֛ה וַתְּהִי־ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶ֑הָ וַיִּנָּחֵ֥ם יִצְחָ֖ק אַחֲרֵ֥י אִמּֽוֹ׃ (פ)
(67) Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebekah as his wife. Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death.
(ב) וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהוָ֔ה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַל־תֵּרֵ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה שְׁכֹ֣ן בָּאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ׃ (ג) גּ֚וּר בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את וְאֶֽהְיֶ֥ה עִמְּךָ֖ וַאֲבָרְכֶ֑ךָּ כִּֽי־לְךָ֣ וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֗ אֶתֵּן֙ אֶת־כָּל־הָֽאֲרָצֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔ל וַהֲקִֽמֹתִי֙ אֶת־הַשְּׁבֻעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם אָבִֽיךָ׃
(2) The LORD had appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land which I point out to you. (3) Reside in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; I will assign all these lands to you and to your heirs, fulfilling the oath that I swore to your father Abraham.
(יב) וַיִּזְרַ֤ע יִצְחָק֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיִּמְצָ֛א בַּשָּׁנָ֥ה הַהִ֖וא מֵאָ֣ה שְׁעָרִ֑ים וַֽיְבָרֲכֵ֖הוּ יְהוָֽה׃ (יג) וַיִּגְדַּ֖ל הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ הָלוֹךְ֙ וְגָדֵ֔ל עַ֥ד כִּֽי־גָדַ֖ל מְאֹֽד׃ (יד) וַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ מִקְנֵה־צֹאן֙ וּמִקְנֵ֣ה בָקָ֔ר וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֑ה וַיְקַנְא֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים׃
(12) Isaac sowed in that land and reaped a hundredfold the same year. The LORD blessed him, (13) and the man grew richer and richer until he was very wealthy: (14) he acquired flocks and herds, and a large household, so that the Philistines envied him.
(יח) וַיָּ֨שָׁב יִצְחָ֜ק וַיַּחְפֹּ֣ר ׀ אֶת־בְּאֵרֹ֣ת הַמַּ֗יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר חָֽפְרוּ֙ בִּימֵי֙ אַבְרָהָ֣ם אָבִ֔יו וַיְסַתְּמ֣וּם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים אַחֲרֵ֖י מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיִּקְרָ֤א לָהֶן֙ שֵׁמ֔וֹת כַּשֵּׁמֹ֕ת אֲשֶׁר־קָרָ֥א לָהֶ֖ן אָבִֽיו׃
(18) Isaac dug anew the wells which had been dug in the days of his father Abraham and which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham’s death; and he gave them the same names that his father had given them.
חזרה אל סוכות המדבר / הרב אביה הכהן
יב פֶּן-תֹּאכַל, וְשָׂבָעְתָּ; וּבָתִּים טֹבִים תִּבְנֶה, וְיָשָׁבְתָּ. יג וּבְקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ יִרְבְּיֻן, וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב יִרְבֶּה-לָּךְ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-לְךָ, יִרְבֶּה יד וְרָם, לְבָבֶךָ; וְשָׁכַחְתָּ אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים. טו הַמּוֹלִיכְךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא, נָחָשׁ שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב, וְצִמָּאוֹן, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-מָיִם; הַמּוֹצִיא לְךָ מַיִם, מִצּוּר הַחַלָּמִישׁ. טז הַמַּאֲכִלְךָ מָן בַּמִּדְבָּר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ: לְמַעַן עַנֹּתְךָ, וּלְמַעַן נַסֹּתֶךָ--לְהֵיטִבְךָ, בְּאַחֲרִיתֶךָ. יז וְאָמַרְתָּ, בִּלְבָבֶךָ: כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי, עָשָׂה לִי אֶת-הַחַיִל הַזֶּה. יח וְזָכַרְתָּ, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ--כִּי הוּא הַנֹּתֵן לְךָ כֹּחַ, לַעֲשׂוֹת חָיִל: לְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת-בְּרִיתוֹ אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. (דברים ח, יב-יח)
אדם שגר באוהל מרגיש את רוחות המדבר ,אדם שגר באוהל חש את האדמה , אדם שגר באוהל מחבק את ילדו בלילות הקור על מנת שלא יקפא , והנה סוף סוף אדם בונה את ביתו, ובלילות החורף הסוערים הוא לא חושש שהרוחות יעיפו את האוהל והוא יישאר עם משפחתו אל מול הגשם, ובקיץ יש לו פינת מרגוע לגוף ולנפש . אבל... לעיתים הבית אוטם אותנו מלחוש את החוץ . לעיתים הבית מוביל אותנו לחוש ולחיות רק את עצמינו ,ולעיתים יושב האבא עם ילדו ולפתע הוא מבין שהילד נולד לתוך הבית והוא אפילו לא מכיר את אותה חוויה שלעיתים הייתה קשה, ולעיתים נפלאה באוהל הנוודים. אז האבא לוקח את הילד אל אותו מקום בו היה האוהל ומספר לו את סיפור חייו. האבא רוצה שהילד שגדל אל הטוב קצת יחוש את תחושות הנוודות, את הקושי ואת היופי, ואולי אפילו יחוש קצת כאב ...
וכשישראל יוצאים מהבית אל הסוכות אומר הקב"ה לישראל "כֹּה אָמַר ה': זָכַרְתִּי לָךְ חֶסֶד נְעוּרַיִךְ, אַהֲבַת כְּלוּלֹתָיִךְ, לֶכְתֵּךְ אַחֲרַי בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא זְרוּעָה".